Search form

You are here

Self Defense Myths

Previous threads have prompted me to post this one. I'm curious as to what some of your favorite, or unfavorite depending on how you view them, self defense myths are. By myth I mean half truth, not stories from antiquity. Below are two that I commonly debunk.

1. "Hey man don't you know that all fights go to the ground." "No all fights don;t go to the ground. Someone may, and usually does go to the ground via a trip, slip, punch, throw, etc, but the idea of all fights going to the ground as presented on TV is absurd. Staying afoot is staying alive espically if your opponent is armed, there are multiple opponents or you want to get the heck out of Dodge. Taking someone to the ground is possible when you have backup say friends watching your back, experienced partners like police officers, bouncers or security guards. However intentionally going to the ground with your opponent on broken terrain, inside a crowded bar or without knowning if they're armed or have friends is not a smart thing to do. Likewise intentionally ground grappling with a bigger, stronger opponent is not smart self-defense. Sure you need to know how to grapple, but there needs to be a distinction between sport grappling-which is fun-and the goals of smart self-defense.

2. Gun defense. I'm always seeing people practicing gun defense with the opponent walking up behind them, or to their face and placing the gun against their forehead, back, stomach, etc. "and then all you have to do is raise your hands like so and slap the gun away." This gets pretty absurd when plastic AK 47s are used or shotguns. Much of this fantasy approach is promoted by the marital arts industry and a lot of publishing houses out to make money on flashy, campy, feel good self defense. Does no one stop to think that a firearm kills from a distance, a much greater distance might I add than the karate-ka's foot, fist or chi can reach. I mean after all the sword and pike were replaced on the battlefield by firearms so just where does this leave the gi clad karate-ka against someone armed with a Glock 9mm, Colt 45, or Beretta. Now don;t get me wrong I'm all for training someone what to do against a weapon but much of what is presented today is fantasy at best. But I do have to admit that going to the ground when up against a firearm is the safest thing you can do. Not grappling mind you, but ducking to get out of the line of fire. DRC-duck,run and seek cover.

Knife defence, had a few telling me how they would deal with someone poking them with a knife in the chest or around the back.

Most of the knife wounds I have seen the persons didn't even know they had been stabbed and even when they saw blood it didn't register, they thought they had been punched not stabbed.

My daughters friends almost died 2 years ago when a knife was produced at a mugging and his friend lost an ear and both spent a good few weeks in drug induced coma. He told us the first he knew of the knife was the glint of steel in the moonlight and they didn't get poked in the chest or back at all to warn them first.

Good topic! Speaking from a UK perspective, I’d have to say that the myths surrounding the law, as perpetuated by certain quarters of the media and the political spectrum, are arguably the most damaging.

There is a general view that if you protect yourself effectively, the law is on the side of the criminal and there is a good chance of you being prosecuted. Total myth not born out by the law itself, the way it is implemented or official figures. A civilian acting honestly and proportionately (from their perspective at the time) is extremely unlikely to be prosecuted and even less likely to be found guilty. There are only a handful of cases were that has happened and in all those cases the “defender” crossed a long way of over the line to vengeance and retribution (i.e. set them on fire, repeatedly beat them to the point of permanent brain damage, shot a burglar in the back and then went to the pub to leave them to die, etc).

The danger of this myth is that people fear to protect themselves and, in pursuit of a story or political points, those who perpetuate the myth actually help the criminal element by giving people the impression that the law is with the criminal as opposed to with them.

IMO the worst and most criminally irresponsible myth any Martial Arts Instructor can pedal is:

"If he does THIS, I can do THIS"

The reality is (OK reality in my experience) that instinct has to take over, and complex pre-planned sequences just vanish in a puff of very expensive and sweaty smoke.

If a drill is introduced as a possible response to any specific attack, that's just an introduction. If that's not followed up by focussed repetition until the body and mind can do it without thought, the chances of using that skill - for real - are remote.

Knife defence, had a few telling me how they would deal with someone poking them with a knife in the chest or around the back.

Most of the knife wounds I have seen the persons didn't even know they had been stabbed and even when they saw blood it didn't register, they thought they had been punched not stabbed.

My daughters friends almost died 2 years ago when a knife was produced at a mugging and his friend lost an ear and both spent a good few weeks in drug induced coma. He told us the first he knew of the knife was the glint of steel in the moonlight and they didn't get poked in the chest or back at all to warn them first.

Dave great point you made. (Sorry couldn't help that.)

A few weeks ago I was trying to explain to a young man that he needed to be a little more carefull in how he addressed and approached potentially dangerous people. His reply was "I'm carefull, I'm looking for knives, I know what to do." I thought ya right. You're overweight, eager as hell and haven't had a day's worth of training in your entire life. You'll get stabbed before you even know what's going on.

I'm always amazed at how knife defense is presented to the karate-ka. One person stands with the knife held overhead while the other awaits the attack. There's fifteen feet between them and everyone is dressed in a white gi. On the count of one the knifer attacks. Two, I grab the wrist and twist. Three, we start all over again. Outside the dojo things aren't so simple. If the person knows what their doing and is serious, you probably won't see the knife until its too late. Likewise if its wintertime and their wearing a lot of clothing they have ample room to store not just one, but several weapons on their body. Also movement wise, provided the knife isn't used for just a threat display, the attack will come fast and furious. It won't be one,two, three, but instead just the count of one. And then comes that suprised loook as your guts spill onto the ground, your ear goes missing, an artery is ruptured or your lung collapses.

Do you think those who teach sport karate and esoteric karate should even bother with teaching self defense? Or should they say: "Through these simulations, which are not intended for real combat, we achive zen/competitive success."

Cynical? Me? I'm shocked you'd say that! Why it's a cold, rainy and very grey day here in the mountains and I'm happy because of the weather.

You're right I do get a bit cynical at times. It still baffles me though how to get people to make the leap from the dojo to the street mindset.

And you're right we shouldn't buy into the mindset that just because its traditional (name your martial art) that it will not work. Much of it has to do with the instructor.

One question though. Why don't you teach weapons defense? Myself I tend to overstress the physical conditioning and full-medium contact fighting because I like it and find it more usefull for pushing the student to their limit. In fact I've found medium to full contact sparring/drills better than pre-arranged self-defense simply because their live training and people learn faster when they get hit. (Just my observation here folks, not saying I right and your wrong)

Well back to watching the clouds, rain and wind. Gosh, what a pretty day. Life is good today. I'm sad, cynical and on the verge of depression. What more can you ask for?

I don't teach weapons as I don't feel qualified to be honest. I've done a fair bit of work with some very skilled people, and I know what's worked for me, but that's a world away from charging people for that knowledge.

I still think a sprint if I'm alone is the best idea, and if I can't leave quickly massive aggression (with either my body weapons or any heavy object) has been pretty successful thus far ...

In those situations neatly trapping the weapon has never even entered my mind.

Then there's me...5'10" and 95k. Big and...look, I'm just buzzed that I share one physical characteristic with Usain Bolt!

More to the point, my biggest bugbear is the "by-product myth" that's been touched on in other threads and to a degree on this one. The idea that sports kumite, endless hours of kihon or even stylistic kata, can equip you for anything other than that which you train for.

That and the persistent notion that you can drive a person's non-existent "nose-bone" into their brain with a palm-heel strike.

I may be straying off the thread a little here, but I feel this point has been alluded to a few times so it may be worth brining it out. Not so much a myth about self-protection, but a myth about how we train for it.

The myth that because something can work in theory that makes it a worthwhile use of training time.

What I mean is that it’s not enough that something stands “a chance” of working; it needs to stand a good chance of working to be worthy of practise when it comes to self-protection.

Sure, nothing is guaranteed … but things can be “more likely” or “less likely” to work. It’s the more likely things we should concentrate on; and the less likely should be dropped from practise so we have more training time to devote to the stuff most likely to work.

Theoretically we can take people out with a leaping spinning hook kick. Hell, on an extremely good day that may even work in practise too … but I’d prefer to spend practise time refining my much more reliable cross. It’s not enough that something may stand a snowball’s chance in hell of working.

Justifying things through a small theoretical chance is not acceptable in my view but we see it a lot as people try to make the impractical practical in the eyes of their students and peers (and maybe even themselves).

In theory an infinite number of monkeys bashing away at an infinite number of typewriters will eventually write the complete works of Shakespeare. So that’s one way to get a copy … or I could just go to the local book store and buy a copy. The moral of the story is stick to the simplest solutions and you’ll have far less monkey poop around the place.

Okay, let me ask this you guys and girls this question. Where self-defense is concerned, or if you're a self-defense orintated karate-ka, do you feel it better to start the beginning student off with live drills and simple techniques done on pads than kihon? For instance I usually start beginners with the following strikes instead of basic kihon: jab, right & left cross, hook punch, shin kick, heel stomp and a couple of knee and elbow strikes. After they have developed some skill with these techniques through pad work, drills and sparring I then teach kihon. Then after about a year of training, sometimes longer, we approach kata. I feel it's more effective to teach the student something they can use and based on natural movement, than have them spending all their time worrying about if their hand or foot is in proper postion.

The second time they met started off amicably enough. "She had a little smile on her face," he said. "I thought she was coming to shake my hand which was slightly odd because somebody dressed in a hijab wouldn't normally be willing to shake a man's hand. Then at the last minute ... she stuck the knife in." He said it occurred to him the attack could have been motivated by Iraq. The MP has stood by the decision he took.

He felt very little pain. A security guard restrained Choudhry while the MP's aide wrestled the knife out of her hand. She was carrying a second knife in her bag in case one broke during the attack. "I went to the loo a few yards away to see what had happened to me. I lifted up my jumper and saw there was quite a lot of blood there and that was when I knew I had been quite seriously injured," he said. Both blows reached the liver and caused minor bleeding - but one also perforated his stomach causing major damage.

Given everything he has been through - he required surgery after the attack and was told by doctors he could have died without prompt medical attention - Mr Timms is remarkably compassionate towards his attacker.

Regardless of the potential cultural or political readings of this submission, the fact of the matter is that the victim was totally unaware that he was about to be attacked. For me it's all about pre planning. Do I take this train, or switch; Who is the person, friend or foe? What is my basic protocol?

I hope you don't mind this long reply. Please feel free to post this to the wider audience as I am not into one to one chats. Even so, I wanted to reply to your specific comments rather than add to the general debate at the moment.

I have what I think is a very good instructor. He tells the story of a poet I think. A student visits him, as he is rated as the greatest poet of all time. This student stays with him and is taught just three words. He gets frustrated after many years because all that he has been taught is just three words. He leaves his master. In a village there is a poetry competition. He enters with just the three words. The villagers hear his words; and they are the most beautiful words they have ever heard. He wins the contest.

Moral; Less is more.

I think that this means that you go back to what you are first taught as a primary option. Get a teenager to draw a house in five seconds (what did you think of?). I bet most draw a box with a door in the middle, two windows at the top and a triangular roof with chimney and smoke. Who actually lives in a house like that? No-one I bet. Even so kids in Hong Kong do this. Why? Because it is what is first taught, and when stress kicks in we all go into default mode, ie what we first learnt.

Okay, let me ask this you guys and girls this question. Where self-defense is concerned, or if you're a self-defense orintated karate-ka, do you feel it better to start the beginning student off with live drills and simple techniques done on pads than kihon?

We start off with a mix of awareness appreciation, pre-emption and escape, basic pad-work, live drills (appropriate to the level) and kihon. On the one hand they need to have things that stand a chance of working from day one, but I also like to lay the foundation for the long game.

The awareness, pre-emption and escape stuff being of immediate importance. The detailed kihon starts to lay the foundation for the high skill levels we want to develop over the months, years and decades to come. So we go for a mix.

The common approach is kihon at the exclusion of all else and while that can work OK for high level martial arts and fighting in the long term, it does not help the student who does not stick around for the long term. Nor does it help those who have come to learn self-protection.

One thing we do early on is have them get their hands up. the normal yoi-dachi has been replaced by one where hands are up and elbows tucked. Hopefully drilling the idea that you have your hands up when you're ready to fight. It's not a guard as such just a pose that would look normal in any situation.

Speaking from a UK perspective, I’d have to say that the myths surrounding the law, as perpetuated by certain quarters of the media and the political spectrum, are arguably the most damaging.

There is a general view that if you protect yourself effectively, the law is on the side of the criminal and there is a good chance of you being prosecuted. Total myth not born out by the law itself, the way it is implemented or official figures. A civilian acting honestly and proportionately (from their perspective at the time) is extremely unlikely to be prosecuted and even less likely to be found guilty. There are only a handful of cases were that has happened and in all those cases the “defender” crossed a long way of over the line to vengeance and retribution (i.e. set them on fire, repeatedly beat them to the point of permanent brain damage, shot a burglar in the back and then went to the pub to leave them to die, etc).

The danger of this myth is that people fear to protect themselves and, in pursuit of a story or political points, those who perpetuate the myth actually help the criminal element by giving people the impression that the law is with the criminal as opposed to with them.

This is why Mark Dawes's "Understanding Reasonable Force" is near the top of my recommended/essential reading list when I teach a self defence course. What I found to be so great about this book is that it shows not only how much a citizen is allowed to do in a self defence situation, but how much they are expected to do by the law i.e. intervention.

On the subject of gun disarms my fellow Hard Target instructor, Al Cain regularly exposes one we see all-too-often: the assumption that the handgun will be cold.

Here are my pet RBSD peeves

1/ *Classic* I would block (reactive training mindset)

2/ In a real situation I would be more effecient (the reverse is often true)

3/ Our stuff is too deadly to train under pressure

4/ My instructor has done this, this and this and therefore that means his style is the best and who are you to question (appeal to authority logical fallacy)

5/ Our system is practiced by the Spetznaz/Israeli Strike Force/Navy Seals/SAS (is it part of a military recruiting programme (join the army, get a blue belt)? Do the tactic apply to civilian self defence? Most established martial arts can claim to have been taught in the military at some period whether or not they are relevant to self defence or what you will be learning resembles what was taught in the military is another matter. Plus elite organizations also get taught crap)

6/ This has been taught for centuries so it is "time-tested" (appeal to antiquity logical fallacy)

That’s a personal bugbear of mine as it effectively translates as “our stuff is not pressure tested”. Sure there are certain things it would not be safe to permit in training, but the skills needed to apply those things can still be pressure tested. People also need to experience the chaos if they are going to be able to navigate it.

I also think it would be fair to say that the more an art pressure tests, the more effective it is. A lack of pressure testing should therefore point to ineffectiveness not “deadliness”.

For instance I usually start beginners with the following strikes instead of basic kihon: jab, right & left cross, hook punch, shin kick, heel stomp and a couple of knee and elbow strikes. After they have developed some skill with these techniques through pad work, drills and sparring I then teach kihon.

Can I take it from your comments that you do not use those techniques within your kihon then Michael?

I would tend to use kihon alongside the padwork to teach the same techniques. The kihon to teach the 'triggers', the pads to bring it together and teach the impact.

Perhaps you are just teaching it the other way around? (Which would of course be fair enough if it's how you get your students striking properly).

For instance I usually start beginners with the following strikes instead of basic kihon: jab, right & left cross, hook punch, shin kick, heel stomp and a couple of knee and elbow strikes. After they have developed some skill with these techniques through pad work, drills and sparring I then teach kihon.

Can I take it from your comments that you do not use those techniques within your kihon then Michael?

I would tend to use kihon alongside the padwork to teach the same techniques. The kihon to teach the 'triggers', the pads to bring it together and teach the impact.

Perhaps you are just teaching it the other way around? (Which would of course be fair enough if it's how you get your students striking properly).

Gavin,

When we get to kihon yes I do and when we get to kata yes I do. Part of the above is it easier for me to get students striking with basic boxing than karate, or what they believe is karate. With the boxing drills along with others I have them do, such as kicking a soccer ball or manuvering it around with only their feet, its easier to instill a sense of hip rotation, fluid movements and rapid fire techniques. All to often what I find (my opinion only here) is that when kihon is mentioned everyone goes "ah formal Japanese" and they worry more so about looking right than applying it right. Stance has to be 2 and 3/4 feet wide, elbow one fist away from ribs when blocking, back straight, breath in and out, etc, etc. That's all fine and dandy and I do stress proper body mechanics, but the very first thing I want them to do is to learn how to strike naturally.

Part of it also is I love boxing, so I incorperate it into my teachings.

Personally, I want to get the message that there is no such thing as a 'karate punch' out there as soon as possible and seek to avoid any karate/boxing separation - you either hit correctly or you don't, with the acid test (i.e. the 'correctly' bit) being the power/affect of the strike.

Sounds to me like we are on the same page (more or less) but have different strategies for how to develop exactly the same thing in our students (coincidentally, my definition of a 'style')

For me there are more similarities between the civil fighting arts/ systems of self defense than most people consider or would like to admit. Greek Pankration, early bare knuckles fighting and karate all have a lot in common where fighting is concerned. Is it because the art of fighting originated in one place (China as most people claim thanks to David Carridine) then spread? No, its because the human body only moves in so many ways therefore no matter what culture you come from similarities will be present where similar combative demands exist. For instance here's a video of some Pankration techniques: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a7eS6DfbLo&feature=related. Most if not all those techniques can be found in both karate and judo, not to mention other civil fighting arts.

I'm really not so much a purist in the fact that I'm trying to preserve what many people feel traditional karate is as I am in teaching good fighting skills. As you pointed out there's more techniques left out of a kata than there is in them. Why? Well the inventor was trying to preserve a given combative tactic, theme, technique etc. Just because the technique wasn't included dosen't mean it can't be added into the mix. I feel one thing that seriously hampers people when they train in karate is that they never think outside the box. How many times have I heard someone say, "Well, its not in the kata." Translated that means I'm afraid to use it because its breaking with tradition and when this mindset is put to the test the person usually gets hurt. Then they turn around and say, "karate dosen't work, its not fit for the street." Wrong what got you in a bind wasn't karate per say, but your own limited view point. I really feel where self-defense is concerned that we're bound more by convention than fighting art. The Japanese loved boxing when it was introduced to their country back in the 1920's. As for the Okinawans they were very eclectic prior to the war and even after to a point. My dad was stationed on Okinawa during the late 40's-early 50's and he used to tell me that the difference between Judo and karate was one hit you before they threw you down while the other threw you to the ground first then hit you.

If the person has a good instructor who's not afraid to think outside the box and live training is used then the skill level jumps tremendously, or at least that's been my experience.

Is it because the art of fighting originated in one place (China as most people claim thanks to David Carridine) then spread? No, its because the human body only moves in so many ways therefore no matter what culture you come from similarities will be present where similar combative demands exist.

Glad this has been mentioned. I liken it to convergeant evolution. The myth of hyperdiffussionism is about as common as its opposite nationalist/ethnocentric myth. Certain systems have concrete evidence to support the connection with other arts i.e. karate's link to Chinese martial arts and TKD's link to Shotokan. However, just about every culture has evolved its own system of fighting - whether or not that system has survived is another debate. We train with pressure testing activities at the very beginning in order to quarry natural techniques. I have seen completely untrained individuals use versions of straight and hooked strikes as well as side headlock takedowns, waistlocks, sweeps and tackles in such pressure tests.

Now I'm normally quite a mild mannered bloke and I've never battered anyone physically or verbally unless they thoroughly deserve it, but some things really get my goat.

I just hate it when someone rings up to chew the fat about training, tells you all about how their systems this and their systems that; then tells you how your system is flawed because of this and flawed because of that ...

Then admits they've never had a fight since year four at school.

That's not to say that every self-defence, martial arts or MMA instructor should be covered in scars and be employed part time by the special forces, but lets be honest here, if people have never, ever been tested they're simply working on principles and heresay. That doesn't make them bad people or even poor coaches, but in my opinion it's shaky ground to start rubbishing other systems.

"Of course, Enshin is flawed as you don't punch to the face" was the tipping point for me this morning, answered by, "No mate, but I used to be a right idiot and I'd fight anyone who asked me. How many fights, I mean real fights, have you had?" "Er ... None"

Of all the self-defence myths, the idea that training in a safe place and getting a high grade automatically trumps real-life experience has got to be the biggest. Perhaps we ought to forget about belts (this joker was a 5th Dan and called himself Sensei ****) and start wearing little figures of idiots with crosses through them - fighter pilot style - on our gi's.

the idea that training in a safe place and getting a high grade automatically trumps real-life experience has got to be the biggest.

People “reinventing reality” to fit the training they have heavily invested in is an offshoot of this. We should of course make training fit reality; not “reality” fit training.

Those with little personal experience should be sure to listen to those that have that experience and ensure their training replicates and addresses all associated issues. However, those who prefer to “reinvent reality” to fit training frequently try use the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy as you describe.

As annoying as that can be, it can we worse for their students if they ever face a “reality check”.

Those with little personal experience should be sure to listen to those that have that experience and ensure their training replicates and addresses all associated issues. However, those who prefer to “reinvent reality” to fit training frequently try use the “appeal to authority” logical fallacy as you describe.

As annoying as that can be, it can we worse for their students if they ever face a “reality check”.

That was me with the "appeal to authority" ;) Here's a quote I am robbing from "Mistakes were Made (but not by me)", which was in turn taking from George Orwell, as an opener for my latest article in the Martial Arts Scepticism series and I think Gary might like it:

We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.

We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.

—George Orwell (1946)

This is a great quote and unbelievably apt for the martial arts. I like it lots!

I have to agree with Jamie's Comment above (I cant use the quote function properly), I am a prison officer and I have been a police officer, and I have never been given any information in my training that matched or bettered the information in Mark Dawes's book "Understanding Reasonable Force". I recommend it to all my colleagues, students, and anyone else with a interest in self defence and the law. Those who take the time to read it are always surprised and pleased by what they read.

There is another myth that seems to pop up now and then. It is the myth that, you cannot use your Karate (or any martial art) without warning your opponent 3 times first. We have all heard this one, but where did it come from, and why? Would your potential attacker warn you 3 times that he has a knife, or that he is going to attack you. The idea is crazy, yet people believe that they have to warn they're attacker thay are going to defend themselves.